Fukushima nuclear plant explosion

[avgas]

Casualties among power plant workers

•Two Tepco employees have minor injuries.
•Two contractors were injured when the quake struck and were taken to hospital, one suffering two broken legs.
•A Tepco worker was taken to hospital after collapsing and experiencing chest pains.
•A subcontract worker at an "important earthquake-proof building" was found unconscious and was taken to hospital.
•Two Tepco workers felt ill whilst working in the control rooms of Fukushima Daiichi units 1 and 2 and were taken to the medical centre at Fukushima Daini.
•Four workers were injured in the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima Daiichi 1. They were all taken to hospital.
•Eleven workers (four Tepco workers, three subcontract workers and four members of Self Defence Force) were hurt following a similar explosion at Fukushima Daiichi 3. They were transferred to the Fukushima Daini plant. One of the Tepco employees, complaining of pain in his side, was later transferred to hospital.
•The whereabouts of two Tepco workers, who had been in the turbine building of Fukushima Daiichi unit 4, is unknown.
•Only one casualty has been reported at the Fukushima Daini plant. A worker in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack was seriously injured when the earthquake struck. He subsequently died.

Contamination cases

•One Tepco worker working within the reactor building of Fukushima Daiichi unit 3 during "vent work" was taken to hospital after receiving radiation exposure exceeding 100 mSv, a level deemed acceptable in emergency situations by some national nuclear safety regulators.
•Nine Tepco employees and eight subcontractors suffered facial exposure to low levels of radiation. They did not require hospital treatment.
•Two policemen were decontaminated after beng exposed to radiation.
•An unspecified number of firemen who were exposed to radiation are under investigation.

Yep..... poor bastards.
Hope they enjoy the next few years with their families. They have earned it.
Some may not get more than that.

[Mike Troutman]

Hmmmm thats strange the tail end of your message was missing (quality factors etc), so have re-quoted whole thing so others can see.

I can't help but mention that you are quoting as if a substance was next subject.

Gamma is bad as its effectively restrained by the speed and distance of light. Where as particles not so much. Seeing as there is no 'reported' particle fallout yet, I am more concerned for the people in Japan from 'bone sunburn' if you will than breathing difficulties.

As it has already been shown that the wind is out to sea at this point.

Technically Gamma is a particle yet at the same time it isn't. Funny how photon's work.

Additionally here's a bit from the UK side of things that gives a good detail on the WORST case scenario.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...s-1803114.html

[The Stranger:Me]

Technically Gamma is a particle yet at the same time it isn't. Funny how photon's work.

Additionally here's a bit from the UK side of things that gives a good detail on the WORST case scenario.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...s-1803114.html

"chief scientific officer John Beddington said that the only people likely to receive doses of radiation that could damage their health are the on-site workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. He said that the general population outside of the 20 kilometre evacuation zone should not be concerned about contamination."

Now see this is where I can't see something stacking up. Why kill your workers if there is no threat beyond the plant? They talk of the Fukushima 50 being heros yadda yadda. Lets face it, they're probably going to die, but if it's not to save someone then why? If there is no risk to others why not just let it take it's course?

The other question I have is if as noted in the doco referenced here there was risk of a massive explosion of the motlen core should it have gone through the floor of the reactor and into the water, why is this not a risk in this case? Not saying it is, for all I know it's a completly different material, but I would be interested to know.

[onearmedbandit]

From my understanding the reactors at Fukushima have a very good containment 'bowl' under the reactor, which the Russian one didn't. I may however be wrong, but I recall reading something about it.

[marty]

I've read today that the Chinook pilots were returning from their mission too unwell to return and were simply being replaced. I'll try and find the link again.

[marty]

from a Pilot's forum:



NEWSPAPER ARTICLE TODAY.

The aircrew are in the same boat so as to speak...


THEY are being hailed as the modern-day Samurai - the 180 brave men who stayed behind to fight the crisis at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, knowing they had very likely volunteered for a suicide mission.

Communication with workers in the plant is nearly impossible.

But the message that came out from one of them was that he was "not afraid to die", that that was his job.

The parents, wives and children of these brave men may never see them again, but they are proud of their sacrifice.

A 27-year-old woman, whose "Twitter" name is @NamicoAoto, tweeted that her father had volunteered for Fukushima duty.

"I heard that he volunteered even though he will be retiring in just half-a-year and my eyes are filling up with tears," she tweeted.

"At home, he doesn't seem like someone who could handle big jobs.

"But today, I was proud of him. I pray for his safe return."






Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan told the volunteers: "You are the only ones who can resolve a crisis. Retreat is unthinkable."

In shifts of 50, with no electricity, they are working in total darkness using torches or helmets with lamps on them.

Wearing head-to-toe protective gear and breathing through oxygen tanks as radiation reaches potentially lethal levels and temperatures soar, they crawl through dark mazes of pipes to make an adjustment on a valve or to read a gauge.

Nuclear experts say the skeleton crew is most likely not made up of managers but technicians, including firefighters, who know the plant inside out.

They are more likely to be skilled older men than fit young ones because they have already had children.

And, even if they are exposed to massive amounts of radiation, their cancers are unlikely to develop in their lifetime.

The volunteers are being rotated in and out of the danger zone, often for only 10 or 15 minutes at a time, to limit their radiation exposure.

Japan's Health Minister Yoko Komiyama has raised the legal limit on the amount of radiation to which each worker can be exposed to 250 millisieverts from 100 millisieverts.

The average annual limit for nuclear power plant workers is 20 millisieverts and most do not absorb more than 1 millisievert in a year.

University of Tokyo Hospital Department of Radiology Associate Professor Keiichi Nakagawa, said: "I don't know any other way to say it, but this is like suicide fighters in a war."

[Winston001]

Why kill your workers if there is no threat beyond the plant? ....If there is no risk to others why not just let it take it's course?

The other question I have is if as noted in the doco referenced here there was risk of a massive explosion of the motlen core should it have gone through the floor of the reactor and into the water, why is this not a risk in this case? Not saying it is, for all I know it's a completly different material, but I would be interested to know.

There is plenty of threat beyond the plant if they cannot cool the reactors and keep any radioactive material covered. An explosion, or fire, even lots of steam will throw radioactive particles into the air.

The prevailing winds are westerly = blow out to sea, but that depends on the weather.

Melt-down: Three Mile Island had a melt-down but nobody was killed and nothing melted through the bottom. The reactors are held in a thick steel and concrete containment structure to prevent melting into the earth.

Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel plus the reactor was live and well when it went critical. Lots of active particles. Ironically the Russians were trying a safety test at the time. By contrast the Fukushima reactors were shut down a week ago. Its the leftover heat and reactions which cause the current problems.

[The Stranger:Me]

Japan's Health Minister Yoko Komiyama has raised the legal limit on the amount of radiation to which each worker can be exposed to 250 millisieverts from 100 millisieverts.

Now this guy is onto something. I've said for a while that we can fix our road toll by simply revising the target from 300 to 400. Pleased to see my ideas catching on.

[gunnyrob]

It's not that bad according to the Japanese Cartoon network......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN...layer_embedded

[Swoop]

Melt-down: Three Mile Island had a melt-down but nobody was killed and nothing melted through the bottom.

It has been described as a "partial melt-down".

[Brian d marge]

It's not that bad according to the Japanese Cartoon network......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN...layer_embedded

Very funny that , liked it

Stephen

[HenryDorsetCase]

Has anyone linked to this xkcd graphic? I think it gives a pretty clear explanation of the actual levels of radiation (as they've been recorded and reported).

I dont think there is any suggestion that the helicopter crews are on a suicide mission: this is not Chernobyl: these reactors are shut down, the radiation products are secondary sources, and most of the containment is working.

I think this is a very good example of just how safe nuclear power is. This is pretty much a worst case scenario, and it still hasnt gone all Chernobyl.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[oneofsix]

Has anyone linked to this xkcd graphic? I think it gives a pretty clear explanation of the actual levels of radiation (as they've been recorded and reported).

I dont think there is any suggestion that the helicopter crews are on a suicide mission: this is not Chernobyl: these reactors are shut down, the radiation products are secondary sources, and most of the containment is working.

I think this is a very good example of just how safe nuclear power is. This is pretty much a worst case scenario, and it still hasnt gone all Chernobyl.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

yeah real safe - not, well not safe enough. When you have other choices why go there. Basically a power outage at the power station is causing all sorts of problems and near misses. It's not Chernobyl, still a long way from it, but still too close and diverting a lot of resources. Not many other things where you shut them down and still have heaps of resource tied up in managing the cool down that can go explosive on you.

[HenryDorsetCase]

yeah real safe - not, well not safe enough. When you have other choices why go there. Basically a power outage at the power station is causing all sorts of problems and near misses. It's not Chernobyl, still a long way from it, but still too close and diverting a lot of resources. Not many other things where you shut them down and still have heaps of resource tied up in managing the cool down that can go explosive on you.

sure, but the risk assessment must include the fact that it (nuclear energy generally) has provided 30% of the country's power for forty years, and what's happened is pretty much the perfect storm. The design criteria for the reactor containment was modelled on 8.2, this quake was FIVE times stronger, and didnt include the tsunami. I think its done amazingly well.

Sure, there were some issues (the generator trucks they bought in early in the piece couldnt be connected to the plant, for example) and the whole plant had one or two water lines. But lessons will be learned.

And again, its not Chernobyl. There was no catastrophic loss of containment, with the reactor core open to the sky. There's your worst case scenario.

I would love to go to Russia and do the Chernobyl tour.

[The Stranger:Me]

sure, but the risk assessment must include the fact that it (nuclear energy generally) has provided 30% of the country's power for forty years, and what's happened is pretty much the perfect storm. The design criteria for the reactor containment was modelled on 8.2, this quake was FIVE times stronger, and didnt include the tsunami. I think its done amazingly well.

Sure, there were some issues (the generator trucks they bought in early in the piece couldnt be connected to the plant, for example) and the whole plant had one or two water lines. But lessons will be learned.

And again, its not Chernobyl. There was no catastrophic loss of containment, with the reactor core open to the sky. There's your worst case scenario.

I would love to go to Russia and do the Chernobyl tour.

Not only that, but there is potential for harm to humans with other forms of power generation too. Would a dam hold up to an 8.9 earthquake? Does pollution from coal or fossil fuel kill?